Is that because they can no longer call them­selves free speech radio? Lis­ten to these calls and you be the judge!

(The calls and story in audios can be found below.)

Edward Ellis put a ques­tion to the: New York State Com­mis­sion of Cor­rec­tions ( both of this listener’s calls are here back to back) A lis­tener put a ques­tion to the com­mis­sioner This short phone call demon­strates the length that the power struc­ture will go to hide its deception.

This phone call was placed to On The Count, the only pub­lic affairs radio pro­gram in the United States hosted by Edward Ellis on WBAI radio. In an ear­lier por­tion of this phone call (heard here) Edward Ellis States He would like to see more schools and less jails, but when asked a rel­e­vant and related ques­tion a caller is uncer­e­mo­ni­ously dis­con­nected! Let genet­icmem­ory read this story for you! Click here Who is free to Talk? Ellis also regards the caller as unin­formed or mis­guided stat­ing “the uni­form code (of con­duct?) has noth­ing to do with this con­ver­sa­tion” obvi­ously Mr. Ellis thinks he’s back in the mil­i­tary, if he was ever there. The uni­form code that he might be refer­ring to is the uni­form code of mil­i­tary Jus­tice (if he even knows what he was talk­ing about). Is far from the mark of what we were talk­ing about,and was most likely added as a red her­ring to fog the issue. In fact the Uni­form Com­mer­cial Code has been cod­i­fied in to all laws of this nation and many oth­ers. It is unclear to this reporter whether Mr. Ellis is just unin­formed or if he has a vested inter­est, because you can never expect those in power to tell you some­thing that is averse to them, and is of ben­e­fit to you. 1. Obvi­ously the ques­tion was rel­e­vant see­ing that he just asked a ques­tion of sim­i­lar nature. (He basally asked Should there be more schools and less pris­ons) A ques­tion which found the com­mis­sion of quite off guard! And had to scram­ble for an answer. 2. Also obvi­ously he had no idea of what the caller was talk­ing about, or was he just try­ing to con­fuse his listener-​ship ( Uni­form Com­mer­cial Code/​uniform code of mil­i­tary Jus­tice [con­duct?]) which to caller started to say, but quickly cor­rected. WHATISTHEUCC The Uni­form Com­mer­cial Code (UCC or the Code) is one of a num­ber of uni­form acts that have been pro­mul­gated in con­junc­tion with efforts to har­mo­nize the law of sales and other com­mer­cial trans­ac­tions in all 50 states within the United States of Amer­ica. This objec­tive is deemed impor­tant because of the preva­lence today of com­mer­cial trans­ac­tions that extend beyond one state (for exam­ple, where the goods are man­u­fac­tured in state A, ware­housed in state B, sold from state C and deliv­ered in state D). The UCC deals pri­mar­ily with trans­ac­tions involv­ing per­sonal prop­erty (move­able prop­erty), not real prop­erty (immov­able prop­erty). The unin­formed might say that “he is right”. It has noth­ing to do with the sub­ject of the show on that day. Well we also might think that the host of “The only pub­lic affairs radio pro­gram in the United States on The Prison Crim­i­nal & justice(Injustice) sys­tem ” might have a bet­ter grasp on the facts.(but this is not to be expected from a col­lab­o­ra­tor) or one who has been duped! HEREARETHEFACTS Arti­cle 3 Sec­tion 2 of the Con­sti­tu­tion states “The judi­cial pow­ers( of the courts) shall extend to all cases in Law and equity aris­ing under the Con­sti­tu­tion” Supreme Court gives us two areas of juris­dic­tion law and equity, Law “being the com­mon law which was once the law of the land” and equity “# Equity (law), a branch of jurispru­dence in com­mon law juris​dic​tions​.In many polit­i­cal and legal sys­tems, a con­cept encom­pass­ing ideals of jus­tice (fair­ness) and/​or equal­ity When you go into court you should ask ( I said ask but really mean think about it) these per­ti­nent ques­tions: 1. Is this a com­mon law court? The answer to that ques­tion will be no this is not a com­mon law court. 2. Is this a court of equity? The answer to that ques­tion will be no this is not a court of equity. 3. And just a cover all your bases you should ask? Is this an Admiralty/​maritime court. The judge will likely make a smart remark like no we are not out in the ocean (Law of the high seas) some­where. As you saw ear­lier the Con­sti­tu­tion grants two areas of juris­dic­tion. So if we aer not using com­mon law and when not using equity and there is no such thing as mar­itime on the land than what are we using? If you were to put that ques­tion to the judge he would have to say statu­tory. This I know from past expe­ri­ence. The Con­sti­tu­tion talks of two forms of juris­dic­tion Law and Equity, it says noth­ing about mar­itime because that’s the law of the sea​.So where dose this curi­ous juris­dic­tion of statu­tory come from? Statu­tory laws is the mar­riage of mar­itime (the law of the sea) and equity. 1 : a law enacted by the leg­isla­tive branch of a gov­ern­ment (is the seat belt (just to name one of many) enacted by the leg­isla­tive? 2 : an act of a cor­po­ra­tion or of its founder intended as a per­ma­nent rule 3 : an inter­na­tional instru­ment set­ting up an agency and reg­u­lat­ing its scope or author­ity Remem­ber the Con­sti­tu­tion: Arti­cle 3 Sec­tion 2 — Trial by Jury, Orig­i­nal Juris­dic­tion, Jury Tri­als The judi­cial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, aris­ing under this Con­sti­tu­tion, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Author­ity The first ques­tion is are you sov­er­eign, are you respon­si­ble for your actions are a some­one else. I leave that for the indi­vid­ual to decide. The spirit of this idea was expressed in the famous Supreme Court case cited in below. “The indi­vid­ual may stand upon his con­sti­tu­tional (if there were such a thing, we will get to that later!) rights as a cit­i­zen. He is enti­tled to carry on his pri­vate busi­ness in his own way. His power to con­tract is unlim­ited. He owes no such duty [to sub­mit his books and papers for an exam­i­na­tion] to the State, since he receives noth­ing there from, beyond the pro­tec­tion (there is very lit­tle of that in our com­mu­nity) and of his life and prop­erty. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Com­mon Law] long antecedent to the orga­ni­za­tion of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accor­dance with the Con­sti­tu­tion. Among his rights are a refusal to incrim­i­nate him­self, and the immu­nity of him­self and his prop­erty from arrest or seizure except under a war­rant of the law. He owes noth­ing to the pub­lic so long as he does not tres­pass upon their rights.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1906). So the least accord­ing to the Supreme Court you have the right to con­tract and carry on your life as you see fit. Very few Amer­i­cans know that they have a fun­da­men­tal choice: To live their lives and con­duct their busi­nesses under common-​law juris­dic­tion or under statu­tory juris­dic­tion. Com­mon Law is the law of the land, the law of the Con­sti­tu­tion. Statu­tory law is leg­is­lated law. I can not be made to com­ply with any leg­is­lated law that is not leg­is­lated as “Pos­i­tive Law”. Check the Con­sti­tu­tion, Arti­cle I, Sec­tion 8, clauses 17&18. Because I am not a 14th Amend­ment Fed­eral cit­i­zen, ONLY clause 18 applies to me!! Look at the 14th Amend­ment, “All Per­sons” — I am not a “per­son”, never have been and never will be — born or nat­u­ral­ized in the United States — I was nei­ther born or nat­u­ral­ized in the United States, I was born in the Sov­er­eign union state, and sub­ject to the juris­dic­tion thereof — note the word “and”, it does not say is, that means some peo­ple are and some peo­ple are not; I AMNOT!! — are cit­i­zens of the United States and of the State — the word state is not a proper noun and should not be cap­i­tal­ized! — in which they reside. — I do not reside any­where there­fore I am not a res­i­dent. You can not be a state Cit­i­zen and a res­i­dent at the same time, if you are a res­i­dent then you are a Fed­eral Sub­ject!! Juris­dic­tional lim­its of the United States (Con­sti­tu­tion the United States) (United States) exer­cise exclu­sive leg­is­la­tion in all cases what­so­ever, over such dis­trict (not exceed­ing ten miles square) as may, by ces­sion of par­tic­u­lar states, and the accep­tance of Con­gress, become the seat of the gov­ern­ment of the United States, and to exer­cise like author­ity over all places pur­chased by the con­sent of the leg­is­la­ture of the state in which the same shall be, for the erec­tion of forts, mag­a­zines, arse­nals, dock-​yards, and other need­ful build­ings so accord­ing to the Con­sti­tu­tion the United States is adju­di­cat­ing in venues other than there domain. The broad lan­guage of Title 27, Code of Fed­eral Reg­u­la­tions, Part 72.11 makes almost all crimes whether or not they are Fed­eral or States crimes “com­mer­cial crimes.” In the Pro­peller Genessee Chief, supra, it was revealed that admi­ralty courts have juris­dic­tion over inter­state com­merce, so it would fol­low that the crimes listed in 27CFR72.11 are cog­niz­able in an admi­ralty or mar­itime court, and such are com­mer­cial courts. The rel­e­vant part of the text is as fol­lows: Com­mer­cial crimes. Any of the fol­low­ing types of crimes (Fed­eral or State): Offences against the rev­enue laws; bur­glary; coun­ter­feit­ing; forgery; kid­nap­ping; lar­ceny; rob­bery; ille­gal sale or pos­ses­sion of deadly weapons; pros­ti­tu­tion (includ­ing solic­it­ing, procur­ing, pan­der­ing, white slav­ing, keep­ing house of ill fame, and like offences); extor­tion; swin­dling and con­fi­dence games; and attempt­ing to com­mit, con­spir­ing to com­mit, or com­pound­ing any of the fore­go­ing crimes. Addic­tion to nar­cotic drugs and use of mar­i­huana will be treated as if such were com­mer­cial crime. In the Ebsworth & Ebsworth lec­ture of 1994, infra, Proc­tor Wiswall states: “Con­gress has been repeat­edly held by the Court to have the power to extend the admi­ralty and mar­itime juris­dic­tion by statute, and Con­gress has repeat­edly exer­cised that power;” (see e.g., The “Lot­tawana”, 88 U.S. 558 (1875); also Panama Rail­road v. John­son, 264 U.S. 375 (1924)). for more infor­ma­tion on this see : THESECRETOFTHESPE­CIALMAR­ITIMEJURIS­DIC­TIONOFTHEUNITEDSTATESEXPOSED What is com­mon law There 10 major prin­ci­ples or max­ims of com­mon law. 1. WORK­MANISWOR­THYOFHISHIRE2. ALLAREEQUALUNDERTHELAW3. INCOM­MERCETRUTHISSOV­ER­EIGN4. TRUTHISEXPRESSEDINTHEFORMOFANAFFI­DAVIT5. ANUNRE­BUTTEDAFFI­DAVITSTANDSASTRUTHINCOM­MERCE. 6. ANUNRE­BUTTEDAFFI­DAVITBECOMESTHEJUDG­MENTINCOM­MERCE. 7. INCOM­MERCEFORANYMAT­TERTOBERESOLVEDMUSTBEEXPRESSED. 8. HEWHOLEAVESTHEBAT­TLE­FIELDFIRSTLOSESBYDEFAULT. 9.SACRIFICEISTHEMEA­SUREOFCRED­I­BIL­ITY (NOWILL­ING­NESSTOSAC­RI­FICE = NOLIA­BIL­ITY, RESPON­SI­BIL­ITY, AUTHOR­ITYORMEA­SUREOFCON­VIC­TION). A LIENORCLAIMCANBESAT­IS­FIEDONLYTHROUGHREBUT­TABLEBYAFFI­DAVITPOINTBYPOINT, RES­O­LU­TIONBYJURY, ORPAY­MENT. 10.A LIENORCLAIMCANBESAT­IS­FIEDONLYTHROUGHREBUT­TABLEBYAFFI­DAVITPOINTBYPOINT, RES­O­LU­TIONBYJURY, ORPAY­MENT. For more infor­ma­tion why these are max­ims though most are self-​explanatory see : law and max­ims or max­ims law revis­ited avail­able on the site. As you can see none of what they do have any­thing to do with the law (com­mon law) But as if that weren’t enough is impos­si­ble for you to get a fair trial! Rid­dle me this one Bat­man, is it pos­si­ble to get a fair trial if there’s a con­flict of inter­ests. Just in case you didn’t know to answer. No! It is impos­si­ble to get a fair trial when there’s a con­flict of inter­est. Are you won­der­ing what the con­flict of inter­est is. Here are some ques­tions that might clear that up. Who does a judge rep­re­sent? (get paid by) Who does the pros­e­cu­tor rep­re­sent? (get paid by) (If you have a pub­lic defender) Who does the pub­lic offender get paid by? answer: The State Who by the way in most cases is also the plain­tiff, talk about con­flict of inter­est! but this is all made legal by virtue of the straw­man argu­ment. What is the straw­man argu­ment? In gen­eral, a straw­man is an object, doc­u­ment, per­son, or argu­ment that tem­porar­ily stands in for and is intended to be “knocked down” by some­thing more sub­stan­tial. The straw­man is a type of red Her­ring because the arguer is attempt­ing to refute the opponent’s posi­tion in the con­text required to, do so, but instead attacks a posi­tion (the straw man) not held by the oppo­nent. In the straw­man argu­ment, the arguer argues to a con­clu­sion that denies the straw­man he has set up, but misses the tar­get. There may be noth­ing wrong with the argu­ment pre­sented by the odd your when it is taken out of con­text, that is it may be a per­fectly good argu­ment against a straw­man. It is because the bur­den of proof is on the arguer to argue against though oppo­nents posi­tion that the straw­man fal­lacy is com​mit​ted​.so the fal­lacy is not sim­ply the argu­ment but the entire sit­u­a­tion of the argu­ment accord­ing to the con­text. How dose it works? Per­son A (you) have/​has posi­tioned X. Per­son B (pros­e­cu­tor) presents posi­tion Y (the straw­man) Per­son B attacks posi­tion Y ( which is a dis­tor­tion of posi­tion X) There­fore X is false, incor­rect and flawed. Next we should look at stand­ing. From an arti­cle from adven­tures in legal land “We hold these truths to be self-​evident, that all men are cre­ated equal, that they are endowed by their Cre­ator with cer­tain unalien­able Rights, that among these are Life, Lib­erty and the Pur­suit of Hap­pi­ness. — That to secure these rights, Gov­ern­ments are insti­tuted among Men, deriv­ing their just pow­ers from the con­sent of the gov­erned…” Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence. (You must get a good under­stand­ing of this rul­ing) “An analy­sis of stand­ing begins with a deter­mi­na­tion of whether the party seek­ing relief has sus­tained an injury (see Soci­ety of Plas­tics Indus. v. County of Suf­folk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 772 – 773, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1043 [1991]).” Mahoney v. Pataki, 772 N.E.2d 1118, 1122 (N.Y. 2002). As it is impos­si­ble for the state to be injured, the state (the munic­i­pal Cor­po­ra­tion) there­fore can never had a stand­ing in court.

A story from Aesop’s — African fables

The cat and the mice There was once a house over run with mice, the cat said that’s the place for me and off she went and took her quar­ters in the house and she cap­tured and ate the mice one by one. At last the mice could stand it no longer and were deter­mined to take to their holes and stay there. This could be a prob­lem the cat said to her­self, the only thing to do is to coach them out by a trick. So she climbed the wall and allow her­self to hang down by a peg and pre­tended to be dead. By and by a mouse peaked out and saw the cat hang­ing there, Aha, he cried you a very clever Madam no doubt you can turn your­self into a bag of meal if you like but you won’t catch us com­ing any­where near you! The moral of the story. If you’re wise you won’t be deceived by the inno­cent airs of those who you once found to be dan­ger­ous! Another inter­est­ing page on this sub­ject see The Wiz­ard of OZ — Decoded Side Note: If you look at

Aesop’s fables with a dis­cern­ing eye, you will see that he wrote about many Ani­mal that where not in Europe at that time! (NOZOOS) Those who have eyes let them see